- the EU's
Justice and Home Affairs Council suspends discussions because
USA has demanded the same rights as an EU member states under
the European arrest warrant to extradite on demand without a
legal process In August
last year Statewatch published a leaked first draft of
the proposed agreement between the EU and the USA on judicial
cooperation (see: Secret EU-US agreement being
negotiated).
The agreement covers extradition and mutual legal assistance
and was on the agenda of the Justice and Home Affairs Council
(JHA Council) in Brussels on 28 February with the expectation
that it could be concluded in May or June.

However, a major
sticking point emerged on the issue of extradition. The EU Framework
Decision on the European arrest warrant, adopted on 13 June 2002,
is due to come into operation across the EU in January 2004.
This will means that, for a list of 32 offences, legal proceedings
in the requested state will no longer be necessary - that is,
to assess whether the grounds for extradition are valid and the
evidence of an offence having been committed is justified.

With the negotiations
well advanced the US side demanded that they should have the
same rights as EU member states under the European arrest warrant
- extradition on demand with no legal appeal. Even for the Council
of the European Union (the 15 governments) this was a demand
too far - the USA is not subject to EU law, the European Convention
on Human Rights, nor EU data protection laws. Moreover, there
have been a significant number of cases where the USA, post 11
September, has demanded the extradition of suspects or the provision
of evidence which have been rejected by European courts for failing
to meet basic standards.

The JHA Council
on 28 February decided that:

"For
the time being, the negotiation of the Agreement should be suspended"

The "spin"
was that "some delegations have expressed concerns on specific
points" and "the Council could conclude the Agreement
in May or June, after having involved the parliaments in an appropriate
manner":

- top of the
"specific points" is the US demand to be considered
as an EU member state on extradition

- the US demand
to be treated the same as an EU member state for extraditions
may also extend to other powers under the European arrest warrant,
for example, powers to request the search and seizure of property
as well arrest and extradition.

- the agreement
is being negotiated under Articles 24 and 38 of the Treaty on
European Union so national parliaments and the European parliament
do not have to be consulted before the agreement is agreed and
signed between the EU and USA. Some national parliaments will
then be presented with the agreement as a fait accompli
to be nodded through (it cannot be amended by them).